Policing and Crime Bill

The Minister's speech shows two things: first, that we had good debates in Committee, because three Ministers were willing to take interventions and have a debate, and Government amendment 47 now demonstrates that willingness at least to listen and to consider the important issues; and, secondly, the fact that the Minister spoke for almost an hour shows that before us we have an enormous group of amendments, covering a huge number of issues. I therefore hope that we will have the opportunity to decide as many of those issues as possible at the end of the debate. I shall restrict my remarks to two new clauses that have been tabled in my name and those of Back Benchers from all parts of the House. New clause 4 relates to the decriminalisation of prostitutes under the age of 18 and the decriminalisation of the victim. Given the Government's acceptance of the need to narrow the definition of "controlled for gain" in the strict liability offence, new clause 25 deals mainly with the question of whether we should have strict liability, and with the consequent low penalties for people—men—who have sex with prostitutes whom they know to have been, or are reckless as to whether they have been, trafficked or coerced into sex. On new clause 4, the Minister just said that he thought that there was a fine line between our two positions, but that is difficult to accept, because, regardless of whether the line is fine, our distinction is fundamental. If one believes, as I and those organisations that represent children, their welfare and their best interests do, that criminalisation of under 18-year-old prostitutes on the street puts them at greater risk of exploitation and further from help, we have a fundamental difference. There is clear evidence for the position that I and other hon. Members who tabled the new clause hold—that criminalisation is detrimental to the welfare of children and fundamentally against their rights. Although the Minister tried to make the best fist of his case for continued criminalisation, he provided no evidence to support his contention. We need to be very clear that children's charities and human rights organisations, including the United Nations committee on the welfare of children, have for a long time sought the decriminalisation of under-18s in prostitution. Back Benchers are divided on strict liability; the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), for example, differs from me and the other Members supporting the amendment on the strict liability provision. However, there is a consensus, including the hon. Lady, that decriminalisation of prostitutes under 18 is critical. The Standing Committee for Youth Justice represents a number of organisations, including Barnardo's, the Children's Society, the Children's Rights Alliance for England, the Howard League for Penal Reform, JUSTICE, Nacro, the National Children's Bureau, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and others, and they generally support decriminalisation. Why is it harmful to maintain the power to prosecute in such cases? According to the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, although the levels of prosecution for child prostitution are very low, young people on the street are not aware of that. That is damaging. What they know, or what they will be told—[Interruption.]